mahAbhArata critical edition

THE MAHĀBHARATA AND ITS CRITICAL EDITION It is generally believed that the Veda has made the most significant contribution to the moulding of the Indian way of life and thought, through the ages As a matter of fact, ancient Indian culture, or, more precisely, the Hindu culture, as a whole, is not infrequently characterised as the Vedic culture A critical analysis of the Hindu way of life and thought would, however, expose the inadequacy of such characterisation The principal gods of the Vedic pantheon, like Indra and Varuṇa, are now rarely worshipped The elaborate system of sacrifice, which had been evolved and consolidated during the Brāhmaṇa period and resuscitated and reorganised during the Sutra period and which had come to be recognised almost as the hall mark of the Vedic religion, has pow been almost entirely relegated to the back ground The philosophical speculations of the Upanisads have either undergone vital modifications or have been superseded by other systems of thought In short, the values sponsored by the Veda have long since ceased to operate as the essential motive force of the Indian Weltanschauung It is not the Brahmanism of the Veda, but popular Hinduism, which traditionally claims to have derived its inspiration from the Veda but which, historically speaking, has assimilated within itself perhaps more non Vedic elements than the Vedic opes, that dominates the socio religious life of India And the literary works which have left an abiding imprint on the socio religious life sponsored by Hinduism are not so much the Vedas as the popular epics Even among these popular epics, if there is any one single work which has proved to be a factor of inestimable import in the making of the life and thought of the Indian people and which still continues to 1 Extens on lecture delivered under the auspices of the Mysore Univer sty in August 1961 Inevitably, the first part of this lecture constitutes a sort of summary of The Mahabharata origin and growth which precede this article THB MAVĀBHARATA AND ITS CRITICAL EDITION 293 be a living force in Indian life, it is the Mahabharata, the great national epic of India. The Mahābhārata is, indeed, a unique phenomenon in the literary history not only of India but of the whole world. For one thing this epic, which is traditionally believed to consist of 100,000 stanzas, is the biggest single literary work kaown to man. It is eight times as big as Homer’s Ilhad and Odyssey put together. But it is not only its size which entitles the Mahābhārata to the claim of uniqueness. Its contents too are unique in many respects. Even a casual reader of the Mahābhārata would be struck by its truly encyclopaedic character. The Mahābhārata constitutes a dynamic record of an extensive period of India’s history - a record which is prepared by poets who possessed a marvellous insight into the lives of men and women belonging to all strata of society. It is well and truly said that in the Mahā bhārata breathe the united soul of Jodia and the individual souls of ber people. But the appeal of the Mahābhārata is not merely Indian or national; it is essentially human or universal. As the author of the epic justifiably claims : dharnie cā ‘rthe ca häme ca rrokse ca bliaratarsablia / yad ihā ‘sti tad anyatra yan ne ‘hā ‘sti na tat kvacit // In matters relating to religion and ethics, to material progress and prosperity, to the enjoyment of the pleasures of personal and social life, and to spiritual emancipation, whatever is embodied 10 this epic may be found elsewhere; but what is not found here it will be impossible to find anywhere else. Indeed, it will not be an exaggeration to say that there is hardly any human thought or sentiment which has not found expression in the Mahabharata; and there is hardly any situation conceivable in human life which has not been portrayed in it. How did this unique work - vast in extent, encyclopaedic in content, and universal in appeal - come into being ? Prima facie, the Malābhārata does not appear to have been the creation of one . 2. MBA, 18.5.38. 294 EXERCISES IN INDOLOGY author or even of one generation of authors. It must have been the outcome of a long and continuous literary activity spread over many centuries, Scholars like DAHLMANN, however, believe that the Mahābhārata is a unified work, that in it two elements - the epic and the didactic - have been artistically welded together, and that this welding together has been accomplished by a single inspired poet. More or less similar views have been put forth by SORENSEN, BARTH, and Sylvain LÉVI. OLDEN BERG, on the other hand, has characterised - justifiably but rather in strong terms - all such attempts at discovering in the ibhārata a unified work as constituting ‘scientific monstro sity.’ He, therefore, advocated the analytical method as the only sound method for the study of the epic. An analytical approach inevitably leads one to the assumption that, through the centuries, the epic has been subjected to several revisions and redactions involving numerous variations, additions, and omissions. This process of constant revision and redaction of the epic has, however, been represented differently by different scholars Adolf HOLTZMANN, for instance, suggested that in its original form the epic was a poem in which the Kauravas were the heroes. Later on, however, on account of changed historical circumstances, the epic was, as it were, set upon its head. It was subjected to a process of tendentious inversion, with the result that the Kauravas, who were the righteous party in the original epic, now came to be represented as the villains, while the Pāndavas, with all their unchivalrous ways, were made the heroes. It is obviously not possible here to examine HOLTZMANN’S views at any great length. Suffice it to say that this and similar other theories have to be regarded as being more ingenious than convinciog. Let me briefly state my own view regarding the origin and the growth of the Mahābhārata. A critical student of ancient Indian literature knows ibat in the earliest period of the literary history of India there developed, side by side, two distinct literary traditions, which for the sake of convenience I have chosen to call the süta-tradition and the mantra-tradition. THE MAHABHARATA AND ITS CRITICAL EDITION 295 Broadly speaking, the mantra-tradition related to religious thought and practice while the stīta-tradition related to secular matters and the doings of human heroes. The mantra-tradition consisted of mythological legends, prayers, and panegyrics, magical incanta tions, ritual formulas, and mystic speculations of the ancient Vedic Indiaos, while the sūta-tradition comprised a large amount of popular, bardic, legendary, and historical material. It may be safely presumed that, in the initial stages, both these traditions were fluid in character. In course of time, however, the very nature of the mantra-tradition made it imperative that its contents be properly organised and given a fixed literary form. The early literary monuments belonging to the mantra-tradition have been preserved for us in the form of the Vedic literature. The sūta tradition, on the other hand, continued to remain in fluid and floating condition. No doubt some of its elements had inevitably crept into the mantra-tradition and had been reduced to a fixed literary form. Accordingly, in the Vedic literature also we come across such sautic material as the dána-stutis and the gathās, and the pāriplalas and the nārāśamsis. But, by and large, the sita tradition continued to remain fluid for a pretty long time, presumably because there had not been in existence any central motif or any adequate literary pucleus which could have served as a unifying factor for its many and varied elements, Such a literary nucleus, however, soon offered itself in the form of a bardic-historical poem relating to the Bhārata war. The antecedents of this war are too well known to need recount ing. As the result of the famous Vedic battle of the ten kings the clan of the Bharatas had attained a kind of sovereignty over the other contemporary states and principalities, both Aryan and non-Aryan.3 The scions of this great clan continued to dominate politically a major part of Northern India almost unchallenged until some time between the 14th and the 12th centuries B. C. About that time, there arose among the Kauravas and the Pandavas, both of whom claimed to be the legal heirs to the 3. Scc “The Disarājāa” published elsewhere 19 thus Volume, 298 EXERCISES IN INDOLOGY couraged these popular religions to a certain extent For, Cher must have soon realised that the challenge of the heterosol movements could not be effectively met by mere revivalist ellorts. A common popular front was required to be built up against them Consequently, most of the popular religions, wila buku variety of gods and religious practices, came to be organised w one single but multi charactered whole, which was held togeul by means of the thin thread of allegiance to the Veda SUCAS the genesis of Hinduism One very significant constituent or all inclusive Hinduism was Krsnaism This Krsoaism se have originated and spread among the tribes of Westen Central India like the Vţsnis, the Satvatas, the Abhiras, and Yādavas 6 The rise of Krsnaism on the religious horizon of apciems India synchronised with the partially accomplished process of enlarging the bardıc historical poem Java into the epic Bharus This newly created literary monument belonging to the sun tradition had jostantly caught the imagination of the P What wonder then that the practical minded sponsors of Krsus should have thought of employing this popular epic as a You for propagating their religious teaching? They, according redacted the partially completed epic Bharata in such a way as o make it serve their own purpose They started by associating heroes of the epic, the Pandavas, with Krsna Krsna came to represented as a close relative of the Pandavas, codeed as the guide, friend, and philosopher Actually he became the ce figure of the epic, the pivot round which all persons and events the epic revolved All credit is, indeed, due to the remarkable ingenuity and resourcefulness of the Krsnite redactors, WAO brought about these basic changes in the older epic in Suc manner as not to give any cause for even a faint suspicion mi the character of Kssna was really extraneous to the original ep Of course, thc real cornerstone of this Krsnite superstructure was 6 Sce DANDELAR,” Vairogvism and Saivism (particularly, pp 241-249) in Insights into Hudl THE MAHĀBHARATA AND ITS CRITICAL EDITION 299 the Bhagavadgilā. The Bhagaradgitā epitomises the religious, ethical, and philosophical teachings of Krṣņa, and the Krṣpite redactors of the epic must be said to have conceived a very dramatic back-ground and form for it. Broadly speaking, the epic Bhārata is thus the result of the operation of two processes on the bardic-historical poem Jaya, namely, of the process of bardic enlargement and that of Krṣaite redaction. It may be noted that the large amount of bardic and egendary material which came to be added to that poem as also the religious teachings and ethical code which came to be propagated through the epic were mostly derived from the non Brahmapic sources. In the religious history of India, two move ments, originatiog in two distinct ideologies, seem to have been jointly responsible for stemming the advance of the heterodox systems of thought, which had strengtheped their position during the interregnum following the Upanisadic period. They were the sūtra-yedariga Brahmanism and the popular Hinduism. By its very nature, however, it was the latter which held the field after the decline of the heterodox religions. But once the danger of the avowedly anti-Brahmanic religions was past, the sponsors of Brahmanism again began gradually to assert themselves. They knew that, though the popular Hinduism represented, in some respects, a definite reaction against Brahmanism, it was not avowedly anti-Brahmanic. It was, therefore, possible to bring about a workable compromise between Brahmanism and the popular Hinduism - that is to say, so far as the present context is concerned, between Brahmanism and Kțsnaism. The sponsors of Brahmanism accordingly attempted to brahmanise, so to say, the popular religion of Krsoa as far as it was feasible to do so. Indeed, they attempted thus to brahmanise several minor popular religious sects. So far as Kęsnaism was concerned, the sponsors of Brahmanism seem to have started their brahmanising operation with the epic Blärata which had, by then, almost come to be regarded as an authentic Kțsnite document. They introduced in 7. Sec * The cultural background of the Veda" published elsewhere in thuVolumc.300 EXERCISES IN INDOLOGY the epic - sometimes in place, but more often out of place - 2 large amount of material relating to Brahmanıc learning and culture Whole tracts dealing with Brahmanic religion and philosophy, law and ethics cosmology and mysticism, and social and political theories found their way into the epic In most of the legends, which came to be newly introduced into the epic Bharata in the wake of this new material, the heroes of the epic came to be represented as tbe defenders of Brahmanic faith and culture In this context, it may be incidenrally pointed out that, in comparison with the methods of the Krsnite redactors, those of the Brahmanic redactors were obviously gross As a matter of fact the activity of the sponsors of Brahmanism ought to be described not as artistic redaction but as flagrant interpolation The elements relating to Brabmanic dharnia and nitt were thus superimposed upon the bardic-historical elements derived from the suta tradition and the religio ethical elements derived from Krsnaism - and eventually the Bharata was transformed into the Mahabharata The transmission of the Mahabharata (or the śatasālasri Samhita) is characterised by a truly bewildering mass of versions and sub versions Indeed no other work illustrates the dictum “as many manuscripts so many texts, more aptly than the great epic This phenomenon of luxuriant growth and indiscriminate fusion of versions can be explained only on the assumption that after its composition the Mahabharata had, in the course of all these centuries been handed down in different forms and sizes from bard to bard througli oral tradition and that therefore, no special care had been taken to guard its text against partial corruption and elaboration or against arbitrary emendation and normalization This state of things must have continued even after the text of the epic had been reduced to writing The epic itself seems to bear testimony to this process, for, while referring to the five direct pupils of Vyasa namely, Sumuntu Jaimini, Paila, Suka, and Vaisam pāyana, it says samlitas laih prihakivena bharalasy a prahasılah 8 8 AIBA 1 57 75 THE MAHĀBHARATA AND ITS CRITICAL EDITION 301 Accordingly, even in its early phases, the Mahābhārata text tradition had been not singular and uniform but multiple and polygenous. And this is, indeed, what is to be expected of & work which has proved to be a vital force in the life of a volatile people. The numerous variants, additions, and omissions which distinguish the various versions of the Mahabharata are indicative of the dynamic character of the epic. They cmphasise the fact that thMahābhārata had been organically related to the life of the people as a book of constant inspiration and guidance. But it was also natural that, with the advance of scientific Indology which had become evident in India and outside in the course of the past hundred years, the need should have been felt for a critical edition of the Mahābhārata. The credit for first voicing this need, in more or less clear terms, goes to WINTER NITZ who, in his paper presented before the 11th International Congress of Orientalists held at Paris in 1897, laid special stress on this desideratum of a critical edition of the Mahābhārala “as the only sound basis for all Mahābliärata studies, nay, for all studies connected with the epic literature of India.” There were, no doubt, available in India scveral printed cditions of the epic. The Molībhārata was first published at Calcutta, in four volumes, during the years 1834-39. This was followed in 1862 by the well-loown police edition lithographed in Bombay by Ganpat Krishnaji, who issued the same in printed form in the following year. In South India, there had been current a text of the epic which differed substantially from the texts of the Calcutta and the Bombay editions. All these cditions were, however, sadly deficient from the critical scliolar’s point of view, for, they either merely reproduced the version of a particular type of manuscripts or else were eclectic on no recognizable principles and, therefore, failed to remove the uncertainty of the text. WINTERNITZ who was convinced that a critical edition of the Nialūbhūrala was a sine qua non for all historical and critical research regarding the great epic of India,” persisted in his efforts, as the result of which the International Union of Academies resolved in 1904 to under take the preparation of such an edition. Funds were raised for 302 EXERCISES IN INDOLOGY the purpose, and a specimen of the edition prepared by LÜDERS was actually published for private circulation among scholars. But then came the first world war which interrupted all scholarly work in the West However, soon after the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute was founded in 1917, its workers, in their youthful enthusiasm, decided to venture upon the critical edition, making a fresh start. Accordingly, in April 1919, Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar formally inaugurated the work by writing on the collation sheet the mangala-sloka of the epic : nārāyanam namaskrtya naram cai ‘va narottamam/ devin sarasvatiṁ cai ‘va tato jayam udirayet // Ever since the time when the question of the critical edition of the Mahābhārata was first mooted, it had been clearly realised that, on account of the peculiar manner in which the epic had been transmitted through the centuries, it was not possible to apply to it the special canons of textual criticism which were derived from a study of classical ( Greek and Latin ) texts and which depended ultimately upon there being a more or less complete concatenation of copies and examplars reaching finally back to a single authentic written archetype. It was, therefore, necessary to tackle the problem of the Mahābhārata textual criticism in a different manner. The method of the Mahabharata textual criticism bad to be evolved only from a special study of the Mahābhārata manuscripts and of the peculiar conditions of the transmission of the text of the epic And such a study made it clear, almost at the very beginning, that an eclectic but cautious utilization of all manuscript classes was the only method which could be fruitfully employed in respect of the Mahābhārata. Since all categories of manuscripts had their strong points and their weak points, each variant had to be judged on its own merits A text constituted on eclectic principles, with due circum spection, was bound to present a more faithful picture of the elusive " original” than any single extant codex could do. 9. This is usually regarded as the first stanza of the A1Bk. Critical Edition rightly treats it as a benedictory stanza. But the THE MAHĀBHĀRATA AND ITS CRITICAL EDITION 303 I shall now attempt to state-of course, in broad outline - the methodology of the Mahābhārata textual criticism adopted by the Institute. The first step was obviously the search for and collection of as many manuscripts of the epic - that is to say, manuscripts comprising the entire epic ( which however are rare) or a group of parvans or a single parvan (which last are the most numerous) - as possible. The collection of manuscripts was followed by the collation of manuscripts. For this purpose, the text of the epic popularised by the commentator Nilakantha was taken as the vulgate. The various manuscripts were compared with the vulgate, letter by letter, and the differences in readings, etc., were carefully recorded. This collation-work was a stupendous task involving many lacs of collation-units.10 Of course, not all the collected manuscripts were thus collated. The dictum which served as the main guidiog principle in the matter of the selection of manuscripts was that, in textual criticism, it was not the number of manus-, cripts of a given text but the number of independent versions of that text that really mattered. In this connection it was observed that manuscripts written in a particular script, which were more or less exclusively derived from the region in which that script was used, usually represented a distinct version. This is the reason Why the various versions of the Mahābhārata are, except in one case, denoted in the critical edition by the names of the relevant scripts. 11 It must, however, be pointed out that the case of the Devanāgari script was peculiar in that it was a sort of a .vulgar script, widely used and understood in India. Similarly, as has been already indicated, the process of free comparison of manus 10. The following figures may be found interesting : number of manus cript examined : 1,259, number of manuscripts actually used : 734; sumber of collation-units : (approximately) 49,20,000. 11. The version which is not denoted by the name of a script is Kashmiri (K). For all practical purposes, this version may be regarded as having been made up of Devanagarl transcripts of the Sāradā (%) manus cripts. See infra. 304 EXERCISES IN INDOLOGY cripts and extensive mutual borrowings had always been in evidence, and the Devanagari was the chief medium of contami nation between the different recensions and versions Another criterion for the selection of manuscripts for collation was their age Old manuscripts, even though fragmentary and partly illegible, were preferred to modern looking manuscripts, though complete and well preserved Within a version discrepant types were chosen in preference to similar types A critical study of the voluminous collations pertaining to any parvan of the Mahabharata at once brings out the fact that the epic has been handed down in two major recensions or text traditions, namely, a Northern (N) recension and 1 Southern (S) recension Further, it also shows that cach of these recensions is characterised by a plurality of versions, cach of which latter again contains a multiplicity of sub groups The Northern recension is represented by the manuscripts written in the scripts of Āryāvarta, such as Sarada, Nepall (Newari) Maithill, Bengali, and Devinigarl, while the Southern recension is represented by the manuscripts written in the scripts of Daksina. patha, such as Telugu, Grantha, and Malayalam Apart from these scriptal differences, the two recensions differ in the matter of the division of the Mahabharata into its various parvaps ror instance, against the commonly adopied conventional division of the cpic into eighteen parvans, there is a Southern tradition of vision of the epic into twenty four parvans Besides this the manuscripts of the two recensions show numerous other discrepancies, big and small discrepancies in the spelling of the most ordinary words, c & N irida S srila or rrila, especially of proper names N Naimṣa, S aimiśa, in the readings of words, phrases, lines, and stanzas, in the scquence of all these clements, 111 the relative position of single adhy lyas, and in the relative sequence of wholc crisodes “Then there are numerous additions and omissions It may be pointed out that the Southern 12 Hanums po in a few other kt pts have also beon tatminto account for the criticated won THE MAHĀBHÄRATA AND ITS CRITICAL EDITION 305 recension is longer than the Northern recepsion, because of the additional passages which have been distributed all over that recension of the epic. The story in the Southern recension is richer in details and elaborate in treatment. Altogether that recension gives the impression of a deliberate attempt at precision, schematization, and a thoroughly practical outlook. The Northern recension, on the other hand, is vague, unsystematic, and inconse quent. The Southern recension, which may be said to present the textus ornatior, is marked by a distinct ethical bias and is full of septentious maxims, while the Northern recension contains a naively narrated story. In spite of these differences between the two recensions of the Mahābhārata - differences which must not by any means be underrated - the two recensions also reveal a distinct and undeniable family resemblance. In other words, a study of the manuscripts belonging to the two recensions unmistakably leads us to the conclusion that they must have been independent copies of a single orally transmitted text. The stemma codicum or the genealogy of the Mahābhārata manuscripts may then be represented somewhat as follows: The Ur-Mahābhārata, the origin and growth of which I have already attempted to trace, had, at some stage in the course of its oral transmission through different rhapsodists who recited the epic differently, consolidated itself into two distinct text-traditions or recensions, namely, the Northern recension and the Southern recension. The Northern recension is then seen to have branched off into two major sub-recensions - the North-western sub recension and the Central sub-recension. The North-westera sub-recension further gave rise to two versions, namely, the Säradā and the Kashmiri versions, while the Central sub-recension grew into two groups, the Eastern group, comprising the Nepāli, the Maithili, and the Bengāli versions, and the Central group which is represented by the Devanagari version. The Southern Tecension seems to have branched off into two sub-recepsions - the Eastern sub-recension comprising the Telugu and the Grantha Versions, and the Western sub-recension comprising the Malaya lam version. 39… 306 EXERCISES IN INDOLOGY Now something about the main characteristics of the different versions : The Sāradā version which is, in a sense, an isolated version, being least contaminated with other versions, preserves the text of the epic in a more or less pristine form. It has, accordingly, proved to be of the greatest value for the critical edition. The Kāshmiri version is quite peculiar, for, though the manuscripts of this version are written in the Deva pāgari script, they show an unmistakable textual affinity with the Śäradā version. These manuscripts have, indeed, to be regarded as Devanāgari transcripts of the saradā versioD. Here, then, is a case where the script of the manuscripts does not determine their text-critical value. The Nepali, the Maithill, and the Bengali versions often go together, showing minimal mutual variations. Though the unitary character of the Bengali version becomes easily manifest, that version tooks, in many cases, like & sub version or an Eastern extension of the central Devanāgari version. The composite character of the Devanagari version becomes evident from the features of both the Northern and the Southern recensions partaken by it. The Telugu version stands on the border-land of the Northern and the Southern recensions, but its essential character as a version affiliated to the major Southern textual tradition is unmistakable. Among the Southern versions, the Telugu and the Grantha versions are closer to each other, while the Malayalam version often stands by itself. Indeed, in a sense, the Malayalam version may be regarded as being in relation to the Southern recension what the Sarada version is in relation to the Northern recension. Apart from the large number of manuscripts belonging to the various versions mentioned above. certain testimonia or aids of a particular or subsidiary character have been used by way of critical apparatus for the critical cdition of the Mahabharata. Thcsc testimonia normally consist of (1) the adaptations of the cpic like the Javanesc adaptation Bläratam ( about A. D. 1000) And the Telugu adaptation by Nannaya (about A. D. 1025 ) called Andhra Bhūralamu, (2) the epitomcs in Sanskrit like the Bhāratamarjari of Ksemondra (about A. D. 1050 }, the Bald. THE MAHĀBHĀRATA AND ITS CRITICAL EDITION 307 ud

–

bharata of Amaracandra Süri (13th century A. D.), and the Pāndavacarita of Maladhāri Devaprabha (16th century A. D.), and (3) the various commentaries on the epic, like the Jhāna. dipika of Devabodha (early 11th century A. D.7), which is, incidentally, the oldest available commentary, the Viṣamasloki of Vimalabodha (between A. D. 1150 and A. D. 1300), the Bhārata i rthaprakāśa of Sarvajña Nārāyaṇa, the Bharatārthapradipikā of Arjunamiśra (15th century A. D.), the Laksālanikāra of Vādirāja (16th century A.D.), and the Bhāratabhāvadipa of Nilakaotha (17th century A. D.). It is on the basis of all this elaborate critical apparatus that | the text of the epic is finally constituted. It is neither possible nor necessary to dilate. here, upon the canons which have governed the copstitution of the text in the critical edition. Some broad indications may, however, be given here. The first principle of the Mahābhārala textual criticism is to accept as original a reading or a feature, which is documented uniformly by all manuscripts alike. In other words, in order that a reading or a feature should be regarded as authentic, it must satisfy the condition of the originality of agreement between what may be proved to be inore or less independent versions. The rule arising out of such agreement between independent recensions or versions, which may be stated as N=S=constituted text, is easy to compre hend and simple to apply: only its sphere of operation is rather restricted. Difficulties arise when there is fluctuation; and that is the normal state. When there is such fluctuation, the choice falls, as a corollary of the previous rule, upon a reading which is documented by the largest number of more or less independent versions, and which is supported by intrinsic probability. The presumption of originality in these cases is frequently confirmed by a lack of definite agreement between the discrepant versions. Uccasionally we get « double” agreement, that is, agreement etween two or more groups of each recension; for instance, the Sarada and the Kashmiri versions of the Northern recension agree with the Malayālam version of the Southern recension, and simul taneously, the Bengālī version of the Northern recension agrees 308 EXERCISES IN INDOLOGY with the Telugu and the Grantha versions of the Southern recen sion. In these circumstances, one of the agreements must, generally speaking, be accidental, since both can hardly be original; and either may de adopted if they have equal intrinsic merit. However, owing to the much greater correctness and reliability of the Sarada and the Kashmiri versions, the readings of this group have, as a rule, been adopted in the critical edition, other things being equal. The general tendency in the course of the transmission of an ancient text is to simplify a difficult word or expression. A common rule of textual criticism, therefore, is that a lectio difficilior is more origipal than a lectio facilior. Similarly, grammatically irregular forms are more original thap regularised variants. This holds good also in the case of the Mahabharata. Therefore, solecisms, when shown to be original by a clear agree ment on this point between independent versions, have been all owed to stand uncorrected. In this connection it should be remembered that the original text of the epic may not have been necessarily a correct text or a felicitous text throughout. Attention may also be drawn, at this stage, to another rule of textual criticism, namely, that a textus simplicior is generally more origi pal than textus ornatior. Further, as a general rule, preference is given to a reading which best suggests how the other readings may have arisen. Another important rule which the editors of the Mahābhārata have scrupulously observed is that, irrespective of the result that it may lead to, the objective documentary evidence must be, as far as possible, the final deciding factor in the constitution of the text. In other words, interpretation must be given precedence over emendation. Accordingly, emendation has played a very inconspicuous role in the critical edition. Actually it has been resorted to merely for the purpose of unify. ing divergent and conflicting manuscript evidence, never in opposition to clear and unanimous testimony of manuscripts. The editors have always been careful not to force their subjective views in the matter of the constitution of the text. Wherever the manuscript evidence in respect of a line, phrase, word, or word. THE MAHẤBHARATA AND ITS CRITICAL EDITION 309 part is equally balanced, this fact is indicated by a wavy line printed under that element of the text. A wavy line is thus used when the transmitted readings appear to be obviously corrupt or when the Northern and the Southern receasions offer two different readings of equal value or when the evidence pro et contra of documentary and intrinsic probability is equally balanced. Inci dentally it may be added that the high hopes entertained by some scholars that the Parvasamgrahaparvan would supply a decisive clue for the reconstruction of the original Mahabharata have been found to be not well founded. What did the critical edition aim at and what does it claim for itself? To begin with, it must be pojated out that the critical edition did not aim - indeed, it could not have aimed - at presenting anything like the original copy of the epic as Vyāsa may bave written it. It did not also aim at a reconstruction of the Ur-Mahābhārata, that ideal but impossible desideratum. It did not, again, seek to reproduce the text of the poem as recited by Vaiśampāyana before Janamejaya or even by the Sūta before Saunaka. The critical edition modestly aimed at presenting a text of the epic as old as the extant manuscript material permitted with some semblance of confidence. If the editorial work has been done properly, the critical edition may claim to embody the most ancient text of the epic accordiog to the direct line of transmission - a text which is purer than others in so far as it is free from the obvious errors of copying and spurious additions, The constituted text may claim to be the ancestor of all the extant manuscripts of the epic. As indicated above, the constituted text is not necessarily a correct text from the grammatical point of view por a felicitous text from the literary point of view. It contains loose and archaic lipguistic forms and constructions, apacoluthons and lack of syntactical concord. There remain many contradictions and superfluities. There is an evident lack of literary finish. These features - and aren’t they natural in dynamic poetry? - must have been inherent in the old poem. Where they are met with in the critical text, they are documented by the manuscripts themselves or at least are inferable from them310 EXERCISES IN INDOLOGY with a high degree of probability. The critical edition has only cleansed the text of the Mahābhārata of puerile modern accretions and obvious errors of repetition. On the other hand, it has rescued from undeserved oblivion many an authentic archaism. which had been gradually ousted in the course of the transmission of the text. The critical edition of the Mahābhārata claims to be an edition in the preparation of which all the important extant versions of the Great Epic have been taken into consideration and all important manuscripts collated, estimated, and turned to account; it is, further, an edition in the preparation of which the various collateral testimonia have also been critically utilized, Another important feature of this edition is this : Since all diver gent readings of any importance are given in the critical notes printed at the foot of the page, this edition, for the first time, renders it possible for the reader to bave before him the entire significant evidence for each individual passage. The value of this method for scientific javestigation of the epic is obvious. Further, since not even the seemingly most irrelevant line or stanza actually found in a Mahābhārata manuscript collated for the edition is on any account omitted, this edition of the Maha bhārata is, in a sease, more complete than any previous edition, It is a veritable thesaurus of the Mahabharata tradition, [First published: IAC 11, 1962, 39-53. ]